Talk:Danielle Pletka

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Aleaiactm in topic Views and Political Opinions

Non-notable person per WP:BIO edit

As Vice President of the American Enterprise Institute Danielle Pletka cannot be described as a 'non-notable person' under WP:BIO guidelines. The American Enterprise Institute is one of the US's most influential think tanks. The AEI was one of the most prominent supporters of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, during which time Ms Pletka was its Iraq specialist. Ms Pletka has been the subject of numerous articles and her own writing features in publications such as the Washington Post[1].

Therefore template removed.

Tango & Cash 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Danielle Pletka appears on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd. MaynardClark (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Danielle Pletka continues to appear on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd. MaynardClark (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

anybody think it might be relevant the RELIGION of this person??? edit

is this person jewish ?? do not see any religion cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.123.237 (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Climate change edit

An editor removed RS content on Pletka's climate change denialism. The editor claimed the text was unreadable without elaborating and without the slightest attempt to tweak the text.[2] This is the text, which seems perfectly readable: "She rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In November 2018, NBC's sunday morning show Meet the Press was criticized for its decision to book her on its show and let her cast doubt on the science behind a recently released by the US government on the massive economic damages caused by climate change". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm the editor. Exhibit A: "was criticized for its decision to book her on its show and let her cast doubt on the science behind a recently released by the US government on the massive economic damages caused by climate change." That is all. KidAd (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Why were you incapable of fixing the text in question if this bothered you so greatly? Is this a sufficient tweak?: "was criticized for having her appear on the show where she cast doubt on the science behind a recently released report by the US government on the massive economic damages caused by climate change". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm happy to write for you, I just wanted to give you a chance to fix your mistakes before you launched yourself on another edit war. KidAd (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The text no longer says that she rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, which is a violation of WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I does, however, say that she "cast doubt on the scientific validity behind a recently-released report by the U.S. government on projected economic damages caused by climate change" KidAd (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
There's a difference between that and clarifying that she rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, which WP:FRINGE clearly says we ought to say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Including both would be redundant. KidAd (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I thought this had been decided. KidAd (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

An IP number editor just deleted text sourced to PolitiFact which fact-checked Pletka's climate change denial nonsense. The editor who removed all of the text correcting the fringe punditry provided the following rationale: "cut unnecessary info, statement speaks for itself."[3] The info that was deleted was not "unnecessary", and it's beyond me what "statement speaks for itself" refers to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The deletion of the text saying she disagrees with the consensus is whitewashing and WP:PROFRINGE editing. The statement does not "speak for itself". --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Views and Political Opinions edit

I have expanded the views and political opinions section. Please use the talk page if there are issues with specific content being added.Aleaiactm (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply